BROOKLYN  FERRIES. 


?Ex  ICthrtB 


SEYMOUR  DURST 


When  you  leave,  please  leave  this  book 

Because  it  has  been  said 
"Sver'thing  comes  t'  him  who  waits 

Except  a  loaned  book." 


/<-       IIS  So 


Avery  Architectural  and  Fine  Arts  Library 
Gut  of  Seymour  B.  Durst  Old  York  Library 


BROOKLYN  FERRIES. 

 •  <  ^  

SUBSTANCE  OF  THE  REMARKS 


,  OF 

MR.  B.  D.  SILLIMAN, 

AS  COUNSEL  FOR  THE 

UNION  FERRY  COMPANY, 

i 

BEFORK  THE  FERRY  COMMITTEE  OF  THE 

NEW  YORK  BOARD  OF  ALDERMEN, 


CONSISTING  OF 


HONORABLE  JAMES   R.  STEERS, 

MORGAN  L.  HARRIS, 
WILLIAM  B.  DRAKE. 


On  the  24th  April,  1857. 


BROOKLYN: 

I.  VAN  ANDEN'S  STEAM  PRESSES,  30  AND  82  FULTON  STREET. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive, 
in  2014 


http://archive.org/details/brooklynferriessOOsill 


Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Committee  : 

You  have  devoted  much  time,  have  held  many  meet- 
ings, and  taken  a  great  mass  of  testimony  in  investigat- 
ing the  charges  made  by  the  petitioners  against  the 
Union  Ferry  Company  respecting  the  management  of  the 
Ferry  from  Roosevelt  street  to  Bridge  street.  The  Roose- 
velt Ferry  has  been  the  text,  but  the  discourse  hinged 
upon  it  by  those  who  have  prosecuted  this  matter  before 
you  has  been  extended  into  an  impeachment  of  the  Com- 
pany generally,  as  to  their  management  of  all  the 
ferries.  The  Company  have  had  much  pleasure  in 
appearing  before  you,  and  demonstrating,  as  I  think  you 
must  agree  that  they  have  done,  the  utter  ground- 
lessness of  every  material  allegation  made  by  the 
petitioners.  It  is  really  a  relief  to  the  Company  when 
they  can  have  a  hearing  before  just,  honorable  and 
responsible  men  as  their  judges.  From  the  scrutiny  of 
such  men  the  Company  have  nothing  to  conceal  or 
withhold,  and  from  their  judgment  nothing  to  fear. 

From  a  portion  of  their  assailants  the  Company 
neither  hope,  expect,  nor  ask  candor  or  fair  dealing — 
for  experience  has  shown  the  vanity  of  such  expectation. 
You  have  an  example  in  the  course  of  this  proceeding 
before  you,  of  the  disingenuousness  with  which  this 
Company  is  treated,  not  only  in  the  tone  and  temper  of 
some  of  the  witnesses,  but  a  portion  even  of  the  news- 
papers which  have  proclaimed  and  paraded  with 
editorial  notices,  and  all  the  display  of  flaring  capitals 
and  leaded  type,  every  word  of  the  hostile  testimony 
impeaching  the  conduct  of  the  Company,  have  either 


6 


made  but  meagre  mention  of  the  rebutting  testi- 
mony by  the  witnesses  on  behalf  of  the  Company,  or 
have  passed  by  it  in  entire  silence,  and  without  even 
alluding  to  it  in  their  columns. 

In  the  remarks  to  which  your  attention  is  respectfully 
asked,  I  propose  to  consider. 

1st.  The  immediate  charges  against  the  Company 
respecting  the  Roosevelt  and  Bridge  Street  Ferry,  and 
to  show  how  entirely  those  charges  are  refuted. 

2d.  The  system  and  policy  pursued  by  the  Company 
in  the  management  of  all  their  ferries,  in  reference  to 
the  interests  of  the  City  of  Brooklyn,  and  the  vital 
necessity,  to  the  protection  of  those  interests,  that  the 
ferries  shall  continue  to  be  conducted  on  the  same 
system,  by  whomsoever  they  shall  be  managed  after  the 
present  Company  may  cease  to  control  them. 

3d.  The  injustice  and  the  inconsistencies  of  the 
attacks  made  on  the  Managers  of  the  Company  respect- 
ing their  conduct  of  the  trust  reposed  in  them. 


I.— AS  TO  THE  EOOSEYELT  FERRY. 

Prior  to  June,  1853,  the  Ferry  from  Roosevelt  street, 
in  New  York,  to  Bridge  street,  in  Brooklyn,  did  not 
exist.  A  lease  had  been  granted  by  your  Common 
Council,  under  which  Mr.  F.  C,  Havemeyer  and  his  asso- 
ciates began  to  run  their  boats  at  that  date.  That  lease 
requires  the  lessees  to  provide  one  ooat,  which  "shall 
leave  the  landing  place  of  said  Ferry,  at  the  foot  of 
Roosevelt  street,  at  least  once  in  every  half  hour,  unless 
prevented  by  the  elements,  from  sunrise  to  eight  o'1  clock 
in  the  evening  of  each  day." 

The  original  lessees,  full  of  hope  that  the  Ferry  would 
not  only  sustain  itself,  but  be  very  profitable,  determined 


7 


to  try  the  experiment  on  the  largest  scale,  and  (instead 
of  merely  providing  and  running  one  boat,  as  required 
by  their  lease),  constructed  three,  two  of  which  were 
constantly  run  during  the  day,  and  one  of  them  part  of 
the  night.  It  was  the  "  Crystal  Palace  summer ;"  busi- 
ness of  all  kinds  was  never  more  active,  and  the  experi- 
ment was  tried  under  the  best  possible  circumstances. 
It  commenced  in  June.  From  the  spring  of  the  year 
the  travel  on  the  Ferries  always  increases  until  about 
November,  when  it  begins  to  fall  off,  and  reaches  its  low 
point  in  mid- winter.  This  Ferry,  therefore,  was  run  at  the 
very  best  season  of  the  year  to  secure  favorable  results. 

But  the  experiment  failed  entirely — disastrously.  The 
expected  throngs  of  passengers  did  not  come.  So  far 
from  proving  a  source  of  profit,  the  new  Ferry  did  not 
pay  its  expenses.  It  was  run  at  a  loss  (as  shown  by  the 
testimony  of  Mr.  Havemeyer)  of  from  fifty  to  sixty 
dollars  per  day.  It  turned  out  a  total  failure.  Under 
these  circumstances  it  would  have  been  absolutely  neces- 
sary to  abandon  and  discontinue  it  (as  Mr.  Havemeyer 
has  testified,)  unless  the  Union  Ferry  Company,  the  pre- 
sent holders,  had  taken  it. 

The  Ferry  had  cost  Mr.  Havemeyer  and  his  associates 
$170,000,  to  say  nothing  of  the  great  loss  sustained  while 
they  ran  it.  They  sold  it  to  the  Union  Company  for 
$140,000. 

The  Union  Ferry  Company  took  it  on  the  1st  Decem- 
ber, 1853,  and  continued  to  run  it  with  two  boats,  until 
the  29th  December,  1856,  when  they  withdrew  one  of 
the  boats,  and  have  since  rim  one  boat  as  required  by  the 
lease,  and  they  now  run  it  from  each  side  every  twenty-five 
to  thirty  minutes,  instead  of  "  once  in  every  half  hour," 
the  latter  being  the  time  prescribed  by  the  lease. 

The  Union  Company  of  course  hoped  to  be  able  to 
sustain  the  Roosevelt  street  Ferry ;  but  so  far  was  this 


8 


hope  from  being  realized  that  they  have  sustained  losses 
upon  it  (as  shewn  by  the  testimony  before  you)  as 
follows  : 

LOSSES. 

From  Dec.  1,  1853,  to  May  1,  1854,  $14,378  02 

"     May  1,1854,    "       "    1855,   23,649  34 

"     1855,    "       "    1856,   24,826  85 

making  in  two  years  and  five  months  from  the  time  they  took  it 
(i.e.  from  Dee.  1853  to  May  1,  1856,)  a  dead  loss  of  $62,854  21, 
besides  the  loss  from  depreciation  by  wear  and  tear  of  boats  and 
fixtures. 

The  loss  for  the  year  ending  1st  May  next  will  not  be 
less,  it  is  believed,  than  for  the  previous  year,  except  by 
the  diminution  of  expense  resulting  from  the  discontinu- 
ance of  one*  boat  on  the  29th  December  last.* 

It  is  under  these  circumstances — in  the  face  of  facts 
like  these,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  Union  Ferry  Company 
is  now  assailed  with  violence  of  language,  and  grossness 
of  imputation  that  could  not  be  exceeded  if  (instead  of 
having  run  this  ferry  for  the  public  accommodation  at  a 
loss  since  they  took  it  of  about  $80,000)  they  were  receiv- 
ing an  immense  revenue  from  it,  and  sordidly  withholding 
reasonable  accommodations  from  those  who  cross  it. 

Look  for  a  moment,  at  the  petitions  on  which  you  are 
now  proceeding.  The  wholesale  assertions  with  which 
they  abound  must  strike  you  forcibly  after  the  testimon}^ 
that  you  have  taken,  showing  the  exact  state  of  facts  and 
figures  connected  with  the  affairs  of  this  ferry.  Some  of 
these  petitions  are  numerously  signed,  and  among  the 
signatures  are  the  names  of  persons  whose  respectability 
is  such  that  you  could  hardly  have  expected  from  them 
dishonoring  imputations  on  the  motives  of  men  whom 
they  know  to  be  incapable  of  unworthy  action ;  and 
assertions  of  fact  not  only  not  sustained  but  distinctly 
disproved. 


*  On  making  up  the  accounts  of  the  Company  to  May  1st,  1857,  the  loss  for  the  year  on 
this  Ferry  proved  to  have  heen  $16*511  60,  being  about  the  amount  thus  estimated. 


9 


One  of  these  petitions*  avers  the  belief  of  the  signers 
that  the  Ferry  is  not  an  "  unprofitable  establishment,"  and 
that  they  believe  the  statements  of  the  Company  to  that 
effect  "  to  be  untrue."  Among  the  persons  who  signed 
that  charge  are  some  who  owed  it  to  themselves  to  con- 
sider well  before  making  it.  How  do  they  themselves 
stand  now  with  the  proofs  before  yon?  Can  they  for  one 
instant  pretend  that  they  believe  the  statement  (that  the 
Ferry  is  unprofitable)  "  to  be  nntrne  ?"  When  they 
signed  that  offensive  charge,  what  reason  had  they  to 
believe  it  "  nntrne  ?" 

Another  of  these  petitions,  signed  in  like  manner, 
describes  the  "  travel  which  naturally  seeks  this  Ferry" 
as  sufficient  to  sustain  it,  and  states  that  the  "  Roosevelt 
"  and  Bridge  Street  Ferry  will,  if  afforded  a  fair  chance, 
"  not  only  sustain  itself,  but  prove  profitable  from  the 
"business  which  naturally  and  legitimately  belongs 
"to  it." 

Is  this  statement  true  ?  Has  not  the  Roosevelt  Ferry 
had  a  "  fair  chance"  to  prove  it,  if  true  \  You  have  seen, 
by  the  testimony  of  Mr.  Havemeyer,  that  during  the 
six  months  that  he  and  his  associates  ran  it,  "the  travel 
which  naturally  sought  it"  not  only  did  not  "sustain" 
it,  or  "  prove  profitable,"  but  resulted  in  a  dead  loss 
of  8^0  or  s60  per  day.  The  complainants'  witnesses 
swear  the  Ferry  was  well  run  at  that  time.  The  losses 
since  show  whether  the  travel  "  which  naturally  and 
legitimately  belongs  to  it"  is  such  as  will  "sustain"  or 
"render  it  profitable." 

Another  portion  of  this  petition,  to  which  the  attention 
of  the  Committee  is  particularly  asked,  is  that  in  which 
the  subscribers  to  it  speak  of  the  readiness  of  persons 
"  of  abundant  means  and  responsibility"  to  take  the 
Ferry  ;  and  they  say,  "  your  petitioners  understand  that 

*  Praying  the  rejection  of  the  application  by  the  Union  Company  for  leave  to  with- 
draw the  boats  from  the  Roosevelt  Ferry.  Q^jLa^J 


10 


"  they  would  be  willing*  to  take  the  boats  and  ferry  fixtures 
"from  the  present  Company,  and  pay  for  them  all  they 
u have  cost;  and  that  such  an  offer  has  been  actually 
ki  made." 

Here  we  have  another  specimen  of  the  reckless  asser- 
tions by  which  the  public  mind  is,  and  has  for  a  year 
past,  been  misled  and  abused  in  regard  to  this  Com- 
pany. I  have  too  much  regard  for  the  persons  who 
signed  this  statement,  to  suppose  that  they  intended  to 
deceive  the  Common  Council.  But  whether  what  they 
thus  stated  (in  this  last  mentioned  petition)  is  true,  you 
now  know.  It  is  in  proof  before  you,  by  the  testimony 
of  Mr.  Havemeyer,  that  the  Ferry  cost  him  and  his 
associates  $170,000  or  more  ;  and  that  it  cost  the  present 
Company  §140,000.  It  is  proved  (by  Mr.  Perry)  that  no 
offer  whatever  has  been  at  any  time  made  to  the  present 
Company  for  the  purchase  of  the  Ferry; — that  one  of  the 
boats  bought  by  the  Company,  as  part  of  the  Roosevelt 
Ferry,  had  been  sold  for  si 9,000  ; — thus  leaving  the  cost 
of  the  Ferry  to  the  Company  at  8121,000  ;  and  that  the 
Company  then  offered  it  (to  the  only  persons  of  whom 
they  have  ever  heard  as  professing  to  be  willing  to 
purchase  it)  at  893,000.  which  offer  those  persons 
refused. 

Thus  so  far  from  an  offer  to  purchase  the  ferry  at  cost 
having  been  made  to  the  Company  and  refused  by  them, 
as  these  petitioners  would  have  you  believe,  it  is  proved 
that  no  offer  whatever  has  been  made  ;  that  on  the  con- 
trary an  offer  to  sell  it  at  $28,000  less  than  it  cost  the 
Company  (after  deducting  the  price  of  the  boat  sold) 
and  at  $58,000  less  than  the  original  cost  (after  the  same 
deduction)  was  made  by  the  Company  and  refused. 
Neither  these  gentlemen,  nor  any  others,  have  been  or 
are  willing  to  pay  the  Company  the  cost  of  this  ferry. 

When  the  Company  offered  it  at  893,000,  Mr.  

says  the  boats  and  bridges  were  out  of  repair.    On  the 


li 


contrary,  Mr.  McFarlan,  Mr.  Tombs,  Mr.  Mc Alpine, 

and  Mr.  Yan  Duyne,  have  shown  to  yon  that  Mr.   

was  entirely  incorrect  in  this  respect,  and  that  the  boats 
and  bridges  were  in  good  order. 

Perhaps  it  will  interest  and  instruct  some  of  these 
petitioners  if  they  will  read  a  letter  and  notice  which 
were  published  at  the  time  in  the  New  York  Journal  of 
Commerce.    It  is  as  follows  : — 

11  (For  the  Journal  of  Commerce.) 
In  reply  to  your  editorial  of  this  morning,  entitled  "The  Koose- 
velt  Street  Ferry,"  I  beg  leave  to  enclose  the  following  letter,  which 
I  ask  may  be  published  : 

Union  Ferry  Office,  ) 
Brooklyn,  October  27,  185G.  \ 
Dear  Sir  : — In  all  the  negotiations  between  yourself  and  myself, 
in  relation  to  the  sale  to  you  and  your  friends,  of  the  Roosevelt 
Ferry,  the  same  has  been  verbal.  You  will  recollect  among  the 
matters  of  the  negotiations,  I  gave  you  the  refusal  of  that  Ferry  at 
$93,000,  to  the  25th  of  October  instant,  and  the  time  of  that  refusal 
covered  ten  days  prior  to  the  25th.  As  I  have  received  no  answer, 
I  am  now  authorised  to  extend  the  time  of  refusal  to  the  8th  of 
November  next,  at  the  price  of  $93,000,  and  to  say  that  no  less  sum 
can  be  taken  by  the  Union  Ferry  Company.  An  answer  by  or 
before  that  time  will  oblige, 

Yours,  very  respectfully, 

0.  P.  SMITH. 

To  Joex  H.  Smitit,  Esq. 

The  cost  of  this  ferry  was  $140,000.  One  boat  had  been  sold  for 
$19,000.  The  offer  to  sell  the  ferry  with  two  boats,  houses,  racks, 
docks,  and  all  other  ferry  fixtures  on  both  sides  of  the  river,  at 
$93,000,  was  $28,000  less  than  cost.  The  answer  to  this  note  was 
verbal,  and  that  the  parties  could  not  purchase  the  Ferry.  If  there 
are  any  parties  still  desirous  of  purchasing  that  ferry  at  the  price 
specified,  thev  can  have  it. 

C.  P.  SMITH, 
Managing  Director  and  Attorney  of  said  Company.1' 

Thus  ends  the  story  of  the  petitioners,  "  that  persons 
of  abundant  means  and  responsibility"  were  ready  to 
take  the  ferry,  and  that  an  offer  to  take  it  and  pay  all  it 
had  cost  had  been  made. 

The  petitions  containing  these  assertions  have  not  only 
been  presented  to  the  Common  Council,  but  have  been, 
some  if  not  all  of  them,  published  conspicuously  in  the 


12 


newspapers,  and  thousands  of  persons  have  thus  been 
made  to  believe  as  true,  statements  which  have  been 
demonstrated  to  you  to  be  without  foundation. 

The  substance  of  the  complaints  now  before  the  Com- 
mittee respecting  the  Roosevelt  Ferry  seems  to  be 

1st.  That  the  Company  have  not  run  it  properly,  but 
have  made  the  passages  at  a  much  slower  rate  of  speed 
than  when  it  was  run  by  the  former  proprietors,  and  have 
kept  the  boats  in  an  unsound  and  dirty  condition. 

2d.  That  the  Company  have  endeavored  to  depreciate 
and  to  disparage  the  ferry,  so  as  to  be  justified  in  aban- 
doning it.  And 

3d.  The  petitioners  claim  that  the  Company  should 
be  required  to  run  two  boats  constantly,  instead  of  one, 
(notwithstanding,  as  you  have  seen,  there  is  not  only  in- 
sufficient travel  to  sustain  one  boat,  but  the  Company 
will  on  1st  May  next  have  sustained  a  dead  loss  on  the 
ferry  of  about  $80,000  and  are  now  running  it  at  a  loss 
of  about  $20  ftOO  per  annum.) 

I  do  not  propose  to  review  all  the  testimony  that  has 
been  taken.  Very  much  of  it  consisted  of  wholly  irrele- 
vant matter.  I  will  confine  myself  to  such  portions  of 
it  only,  as  in  my  judgment,  are  material  to  the  real  points 
in  issue. 

Let  us  briefly  examine  that  part  of  it  by  which  these 
charges  are  attempted  to  be  sustained,  and  that  by  which 
they  are  refuted. 

The  general  style  of  the  complainants'  testimony,  like 
that  of  the  petitions  is  wholesale  and  sweeping,  with  only 
here  and  there  the  statement  of  a  specific  fact.  These 
allegations  of  fact  are,  we  believe,  either  fully  explained 
or  disproved  by  the  defendants'  testimony. 

And  first  as  to  the  time  of  the  trips.  A  flood  of  vague 
statements  have  been  poured  out  on  us  to  the  effect  that 


13 


the  boats  were  run  less  frequently  and  rapidly  when  the 
present  Company  became  the  owners,  than  before.  Yet 
only  three  or  four  specific  instances  of  detention 
beyond  the  time  contemplated  by  the  lease  have  been 
named,  and  those,  without  an  exception,  occurred 
during  the  ice  and  intense  cold  of  the  last  winter — a 
winter  unprecedented  in  its  severity.  Witnesses  who 
have  been  engaged  on  the  ferries  twenty  years,  state  that 
they  have  known  nothing  like  it.  This  surely  is  a  suffi- 
cient answer  as  to  these  cases. 

Is  not  the  proof  ample,  that  the  time  and  frequency  of 
the  trips,  when  the  present  Company  took  the  ferry,  were 
quicker  than  before,  down  to  the  time  that  they  were 
compelled  to  withdraw  one  of  the  boats,  and  that  since 
that  time  they  have  been  fully  up  to  the  requirements  of 
the  lease  ? 

Beyond  the  instances  of  detention  above  named,  all  is 
mere  loose  and  indefinite  statement.  Some  of  the  witnesses 
say  the  trips  are  run  "  much  slower"  than  before.  Some 
say  they  should  think  fifteen  to  twenty  minutes  apart.  Be 
it  remembered  the  lease  requires  the  trips  to  be  only  once 
in  half  an  hour.  When  not  brought  down  to  particulars, 
and  not  fettered  by  specifications  as  to  actual  cases  of 
detention  or  delay,  the  allegations  made  by  some  of  the 
witnesses  are  unqualified  enough.  They,  of  course,  do  not 
mean  to  misstate,  but  what  is  such  testimony  worth  when 
weighed  against  proven  facts  % 

Wiiat  are  the  facts  actually  proved  and  as  to  which 
there  cannot  be  mistake  ?  Four  of  the  complainants' 
witnesses  say  that  Mr.  Havemeyer's  Company  ran  the 
ferry  with  regularity  and  expedition.  It  may  be 
assumed  therefore  that  it  was  properly  run  when  under 
the  management  of  that  Company,  though  Mr.  Have- 
meyer  says  there  were  complaints  even  then.  Mr. 
 says  that  when  the  Union  Company  took  it  they 


14 


ran  as  well  as  the  original  company  (though  he  com- 
plains of  but  one  boat  being  run  now). 

The  complainants  insist  that  when  the  Union  Company 
took  the  Ferry  they  ran  it  slowly,  and  fell  off  entirely 
from  the  time  of  the  former  Company  which  they  state 
was  once  in  from  twelve  to  fifteen  minutes. 

On  the  other  hand  we  have  shown  by — 

1.  Mr.  J/c Alpine,  who  was  Engineer  on  the  Eoosevelt 
Ferry  from  its  very  beginning  down  to  a  few  weeks  ago, 
that  the  trips  were  made  quite  as  quickly,  and  as  he 
thinks,  "  much  quicker,"  after  the  Union  Company 
took  the  Ferry  than  before, — (down  to  the  time  of  the 
withdrawal  of  one  boat.) 

Now  this  witness  knows  what  he  speaks  of.  He  is  an 
"expert."  It  was  his  daily  business  and  duty  to  know 
how  often  and  in  what  time  the  trips  were  made,  and 
to  see  to  it,  that  they  were  so  made.  He  was  engaged 
on  the  Ferry  before  the  Union  Company  took  it  as  well 
as  after.  There  is  certainty  in  such  testimony,  while 
there  is  nothing  certain  in  that  of  witnesses  who  only 
state  impressions  and  prejudices.  He  shows  that  the 
former  Company  ran  fifteen  minute  trips — that  they 
attempted  twelve  minute  trips  but  "  did  not  do  it  regu- 
larly," and  that  the  time  of  the  present  Company  during 
last  August,  September  and  October  was  every  twelve 
minutes  from  each  side,  though  they  did  not  succeed  in 
accomplishing  it  at  all  times — "  that  wras  their  time." 

2.  Mr.  Doxey,  who  has  been  Ferry  Master  from  the 
first  establishment  of  the  Ferry  to  this  day,  proves  that 
the  time  of  the  boats  was  at  least  as  quick  after  the 
Union  Company  took  the  Ferry  as  before,  if  not  quicker, 
until  December,  when,  as  before  stated,  one  boat  wTas 
withdrawn. 

3.  Mr.  Weeks,  who  was  a  Ferry  Master  nearly  two 
years,  shows  that  this  Company  ran  the  boats  every  12 
and  15  minutes  until  December. 


lo 


4.  Mr.  Drummond,  an  Engineer  from  the  first  estab- 
lishment of  the  Ferry,  shows  that  the  trips  have  been 
run  as  well  since  this  Company  took  the  Ferry  as  before, 
and  that  they  take  but  25  minutes  to  30  minutes  to 
accomplish  the  round  trip,  (i.  e., )  to  cross  and  re-cross. 

5.  Mr.  Van  Duyne,  who  has  been  engaged  11  years 
on  the  ferries,  and  is  now  the  Superintendent,  proves  that 
the  trips  on  this  ferry  are  made  on  12  minutes  time ;  thus 
making  a  trip  from  each  side  within  the  time  required  by 
the  lease.  Now  this  is  the  testimony  of  the  Officer  who 
directs  and  supervises  the  trips,  and  who,  necessarily,  is 
exactly,  accurately,  and  certainly  informed  on  the  subject 
as  to  which  he  testifies.  Does  not  the  proof  thus  adduced 
scatter  to  the  winds  all  the  loose  and  sweeping  charges 
(as  to  the  time  of  the  trips)  which  have  been  made  by 
witnesses  who  could  not  have,  and  did  not  pretend 
to  have,  any  certain  or  exact  knowledge  on  the  subject  ? 

The  proofs  taken  establish  the  fact  that  the  boats  were 
run  certainly  as  rapidly  and  frequently  after  the  present 
Company  took  the  Ferry,  as  under  its  previous  owners; — 
that  since  the  Company  have  been  compelled  to  withdraw 
one  boat,  the  time  of  the  trips  has  been  as  good  as  before, 
and  that  those  trips  (as  to  their  frequency)  are  made  much 
within  the  time  required  by  the  contract.  More  than 
this,  the  testimony  of  those  who  have  been  on  the  Ferry 
since  its  establishment,  is  distinct,  that  the  trips  were  more 
frequent  and  rapid  after  the  Company  took  it,  than  before. 

Most  of  the  adverse  witnesses  began  by  saying  that 
they  were  largely  interested  in  having  the  Roosevelt 

Ferry  run  rapidly.    Mr.  is  a  great  landholder  in 

the  vicinity.  The  Company  now  pay  him  a  high  rent  for  the 

landing-place  of  the  boats  ;   Mr.  has  an  extensive 

factory,  for  which  he  uses  this  Ferry  ;  Mr.   has  a 

coal-yard  in  the  vicinage  ;  Mr.    owns  tenant- 
houses  in  its  neighborhood  ;   Mr.    owns  some 

$50,000   to   $80,000  of  land  affected  by  this  Ferry; 


16 


Mr.  has  a  drinking  saloon  in  its  immediate  neigh- 
borhood— and  so  on. 

This  is  the  character  of  much  of  the  testimony  adverse 
to  the  Company.  These  gentlemen  are  stimulated  by 
their  immediate  personal  interest  to  exact  from  the  Ferry 
Company  such  a  course  as  they  suppose  would  promote 
that  interest.  But  they  are  wholly  unreasonable  if  they 
are  not  satisfied,  by  a  full  compliance  with  the  lease,  and 
by  an  actual  outlay  out  of  pocket  of  820,000  per  annum, 
over  and  above  all  receipts  from  the  "  business  which 
naturally  and  legitimately  belongs"  to  this  " profitable" 
Ferry. 

Now  these  gentlemen  are  very  respectable  and  worthy 
men,  but  even  if  their  vision  was  in  no  way  affected,  and 
their  judgment  in  no  respect  disturbed  by  their  interest, 
yet  what  would  their  opinions  be  worth  on  a  subject 
entirely  out  of  their  line,  and  in  regard  to  which  they 
have  neither  skill  nor  experience,  when  compared  with 
that  of  experts,  and  of  the  very  men  who  have  them- 
selves daily  and  officially  run,  steered,  timed,  and  navi- 
gated the  boats  ? 

Let  ns  suppose  that  fifty  men  who  went  occasionally 
as  passengers  to  Albany  by  steamboats  or  railroad, 
should  allege  that  the  boats  or  cars  make  slower  time 
and  less  frequent  trips  than  they  did  two  years  before  ; 
and  that  then,  on  the  other  hand,  the  Captains  and 
Pilots  of  the  boats,  and  the  Engineers  and  Conductors 
of  the  cars,  should  come  as  witnesses,  and  swear  the  con- 
trary, and  should  show  the  precise  number  and  rinio< 
of  their  running, — which  would  you  believe  ? 

You  have  been  told  by  some  of  the  complaining  wit- 
nesses that  the  business  of  the  ferry  requires  that  the 
boats  should  be  run  through  the  night.  (The  boats  now 
run  until  9  P.  M.,  though  the  lease  only  requires  them 
to  continue  their  trips  until  S  P.  M.)  It  is  proved  before 
you  that  when  the  boats  were  run  until  11  P.  M. 


17 


the  receipts  of  the  ferry  from  9  until  11,  even  during  the 
summer  months^  did  not  average  fifty  cents  ! — (Testi- 
mony of  Mr.  Weeks,  Ferry  Master.) 

The  truth  is  that  the  landholders  and  manufacturers 
and  others  in  that  part  of  Brooklyn,  had  the  same  golden 
dreams  that  the  projectors  of  the  Roosevelt  street  Ferry 
had  when  they  established  it.  They  imagined  that  their 
naked  lots  were  to  be  covered  with  closely-built  houses, 
and  that  the  profits  and  facilities  of  their  business  were 
to  be  immensely  augmented.  But  all  were  disappointed 
in  the  result. 

The  Union  Ferry  Company  have  spent  (including 
wear  and  tear  of  boats)  upwards  of  880,000,  in  trying  to 
convert  these  golden  dreams  into  realities.  The  land- 
holders and  manufacturers  aforesaid  have  never  risked 
a  single  dollar  in  the  Ferry  stock  ;  but  the  Company  are 
still  spending  some  $20,000  per  annum  in  sustaining  the 
Ferry,  and  yet  they  are  denounced  as  oppressors  of  those 
on  whose  behalf  they  are  trying  to  furnish  accommoda- 
tions, for  "  the  business  which  naturally  and  legitimately 
belongs"  to  this  "  profitable"  Ferry. 

The  zealous  complainants  charge  that  the  cabins  of 
the  boats  on  this  Ferry  are  not  kept  clean.  How  stands 
the  evidence?  Some  of  the  assailing  witnesses  tells  us 
that  they  were  neatly  kept  before  the  Union  Company 
took  the  Ferry.  It  is  proved  to  you,  that  at  that  time 
but  one  person  was  employed  in  keeping  clean  the 
cabins  of  all  the  boats  then  on  it ;  whereas,  two  are  now 
steadily  occupied  in  that  business,  and  they  the  two 
most  competent  of  all  who  are  engaged  in  that  branch 
of  the  business  on  any  of  the  Ferries  of  the  Company. 
Mr.  Yan  Duyne  and  Mr.  Tombs,  the  superintendents, 
and  others,  testify  that  the  boats  on  this  Ferry  are  kept 
in  excellent  order. 

But  of  all  the.  idle  charges  brought  against  the  Com- 
pany, the  most  preposterous  is  that  which  has  been  made 

3 


18 


in  such  profuse  words  before  you,  that  the  Company  have 
aimed  to  disparage  and  run  down  tin's  Ferry,  (from 
Roosevelt  street  to  Bridge  street )  This  charge  is  so 
absurd  on  its  face,  that  it  is  hardly  worthy  of  a  reply. 
Neither  common  sense,  nor  the  sordid  spirit  which  these 
accusers  impute  so  freely  to  the  Company,  would  permit 
the  latter  to  pay  $140,000  for  the  Ferry,  and  then  exert 
themselves  to  destroy  it.  As  to  the  fact,  you  have  expli- 
cit testimony  of  Mr.  Yan  Duyne,  the  superintendent ; 
Mr.  McFarlan,  the  chief  engineer  ;  Mr.  Tombs,  the  late 
assistant  superintendent,  &c,  &c,  that  it  is  kept  in  good 
order ;  that  no  difference  is  made,  between  its  manage- 
ment aud  repairs,  and  those  of  the  other  Ferries ; 
that  every  exertion  is  made  to  render  it  efficient,  and 
to  run  it  as  well  as  can  be  done,  and  within  the  time 
prescribed  by  the  lease ;  and  certainly  that  no  disposi- 
tion exists,  or  has  existed,  on  the  part  of  the  Company, 
to  impair  its  value  or  its  success. 

Then  a^ain  vou  are  told  that  the  boats  running  on  this 
Ferry  are  in  bad  condition  as  to  repairs.  This  charge  is 
made  in  the  usual  wholesale  vein ;  but  when  you  bring 
the  accusers  down  to  particulars,  what  is  the  result  ? 
Why,  that  on  some  occasions  in  the  past  winter  there 
was  a  bad  leak  in  the  cabin  of  one  of  the  boats,  which 
leak  was  from  one  of  the  wheel-houses.  How  frivolous 
is  this  charge.  Not  one  of  the  plaintiff's  witnesses  inti- 
mates to  you  that  this  leak  in  the  cabin  was  in  a  period 
of  unexampled  severity  of  weather.  Why  did  not  some 
one  of  them  have  the  candor  to  say,  "  This  leak  which 
wet  the  floor  of  one  of  the  cabins  was  from  one  of  the 
wheel-houses,  and  was  in  a  period  of  extreme,  unprece- 
dented cold,  when  the  boats  were  battered,  racked  and 
torn  by  the  ice  with  which  the  river  was  filled. 

Mr.  McFarlan,  Mr.  Yan  Duyne  and  Mr.  Collins,  have 
shown  you  that  for  twenty  years  the  navigation  of  the 
river  has  not  been  so  obstructed  and  impeded  by  intense 


19 


cold  and  ice  as  during  the  last  winter.  So  badly  were 
the  boats  torn,  and  their  wheels  broken  by  the  ice,  that 
seven  of  them  were  taken  off  the  Ferries  and  undergoing 
repairs  at  the  depot  at  one  time. 

Just  so  soon  as  was  practicable  the  boat  which  had  the 
leak,  spoken  of  by  the  witnesses,  was  hauled  off,  substituted 
by  another,  and  repaired.  When  she  was  taken  to  the 
yard  it  was  almost  impossible  to  discover  where  the  leak 
was,  the  ice  filling  the  wheel-houses  in  such  a  solid  mass 
that  there  was  barely  room  for  the  wheels  to  revolve. 

The  Company  kept  a  large  force  of  capable  mechanics 
at  work  upon  the  boats  of  the  different  Ferries,  and 
during  much  of  the  winter  they  were  busily  engaged, 
during  the  whole  night  as  well  as  day,  in  repairing 
damages  sustained  from  the  ice. 

You  are  now  called  on,  Gentlemen,  by  virtue  of  the 
authority  which  the  Petitioners  claim  you  can  and  should 
exercise,  to  require  the  Company  to  place  three  boats  on 
the  Eoosevelt  and  Bridge  street  Ferry,  on  the  ground 
that  such  increase  is  required  by  the  travel  which  "  seeks'5 
and  "legitimately  belongs"  to  it.  Can  it  be  necessary 
on  this  point  to  do  more  than  refer  to  the  statistics  in 
evidence  before  you  ?  During  the  three  years  and  a  half 
(June,  1S53,  to  December,  1S56,)  when  two  boats  were 
run  on  this  Ferry,  you  had  a  more  reliable  test  than  is 
afforded  by  any  random  conjectures  of  witnesses  as  to 
the  amouxt  of  travel.  You  have  seen  that  it  not  only 
did  not  increase  but  largely  fell  off.  The  experiment  has 
been  tried  in  every  way.  with  the  fare  at  two  cents ;  then 
at  one-and-a-half  cents — then  at  one  cent — and  then 
again  at  two  cents. 

Nor,  can  anything  be  more  idle  than  the  speculations 
of  uninformed  witnesses  as  to  the  profitableness,  or  un- 
profitableness, of  the  Ferry,  when  encountered  by  the 
unwelcome  certainty  of  facts  and  figures.  The  receipts 
by  the  ferry  masters  are  the  best  evidence  on  such  a  sub- 


20 


ject.  What  possible  materials  of  judgment  do  the  ad- 
verse witnesses  possess  that  can  enable  them  to  declare, 
that  if  the  Ferry  were  conducted  as  they  insist  it  should 
be  conducted,  "  it  would  be  (in  the  language  of  one  of  the 
petitions)  amply  remunerative  to  the  proprietors."  This 
is  a  subject  on  which  you  are  not  left  to  conjectures — you 
have  proofs — the  sober  certainty  of  figures  and  experience.* 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  you  are  an  experienced  ship- 
builder, and  have  no  doubt  constructed  many  ships, 
steamers  and  ferry  boats,  and  I  should  commit  no  greater 
mistake  in  opposing  my  crude  theories  against  your  cer- 
tain knowledge  in  a  matter  of  naval  architecture,  than 
some  of  these  complainants  do  in  setting  up  their  crude 
theories,  as  to  the  practicabilities  and  profitableness  of 
Ferries,  against  proven  facts,  and  against  the  knowledge 
and  experience  of  the  intelligent  men  who  have  been 
engaged  in  the  business,  mechanical  and  financial,  of  the 
Ferries  for  twenty  years  past.  Neither  you  nor  any 
other  man  in  his  senses  would  embark  your  means  in  an 
expensive  Ferry  establishment  on  the  strength  of  such 
vague  and  unreliable  opinions,  when  opposed  by  the 
facts  and  statistics  shown  in  this  case. 

If  these  witnesses  are  so  confident  in  the  opinions  they 
express,  as  to  the  profit  which  would  be  derived  from  this 
Ferry,  (if  managed  as  they  say  it  should  be,)  how  does  it 
happen  that  they  do  not  buy  it  at  $28,000  less  than  it 
cost  this  Company,  and  at  $58,000  less  than  it  cost  the 
Company  who  established  it  ? 

The  disposition  of  the  Union  Company,  to  do  their 
utmost  for  the  public  accommodation  has  been  manifest- 

*  Messrs.  Smith  &  Bulkley  purchased  the  Catherine  Ferry  from  Mr.  Bowne,  24th  March, 
1852.  They  continued  to  run  the  old  boats,  which  they  found  on  it,  until  December,  1852. 
The  ferriage  was  then  two  cents.  They  received  for  one  year,  (to  March  24,  1853,) 
$112,452  87,  and  redeemed  the  Ferry  lickets  which  had  been  issued  by  Mr.  Bowne= 
$4,052  20— making  the  business  of  the  Ferry  equal  to  $116,405  07 ;— while  the  receipts 
of  the  Catherine,  Roosevelt,  and  Gouverneur  Ferries  combined,  from  May  1,  15-55,  to  May 
1,  1S56,  amounted  to  but  $124,833  43,  being  only  $8,428  36  more  than  was  received  by  the 
Catherine  Ferry  alone  the  year  subsequent  to  its  sale  by  Mr.  Bowne.  Thus  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  establishment  of  the  Roosevelt  Ferry  did  little  else  than  divide  the  business  of  the 
Catherine  Ferry. — P. 


21 

ed  by  their  running  the  Gouvemeur  street  Ferry ',  (which, 
like  that  from  Roosevelt  street,  has  one  of  its  termini  at 
Bridge  street,)  since  its  lease  expired,  at  an  expense  of 
$5,000  over  and  above  receipts.  They  were  under  no 
obligation  to  run  it,  but  did  so  at  the  request  of  your 
Honorable  Board,  and  that  no  inconvenience  might 
result  in  the  interval  between  the  expiration  of  the  lease 
and  the  time  when  the  City  of  New  York  could  dispose 
of  it  by  a  new  lease.  That  lease  has  been  since  put  up 
at  auction  by  your  Common  Council,  yet  no  one,  nor  all 
of  these  public  spirited  witnesses,  who  are  so  zealous  in 
their  denunciations  of  the  "Union  Ferry  Company  mono- 
poly" could  be  induced  to  bid  one  dollar  for  it. 

Although  the  experiment  of  a  Ferry  from  Boose velt 
street  to  Bridge  street  has  proved  an  utter  failure,  so  far 
as  profit  is  concerned,  and  although  it  is  now  run,  with 
all  the  advantages  and  facilities  possessed  by  the  Union 
Company,  at  an  annual  loss  of  some  $20,000  still  the 
Company  will  go  on  and  comply  with  the  provisions  of  the 
lease,  and  do  their  best,  and  hope  for  better  times.  They 
cannot  be  required  to  do  more,  by  any  principle  of  busi- 
ness, of  justice  or  of  law. 

Under  these  circumstances,  gentlemen,  we  cannot  be- 
lieve that  you  will  call  on  us  to  incur  still  larger  loss  by 
putting  on  more  boats.  The  lease  of  this  Ferry  provides, 
among  other  things,  that  the  lessees,  when  required  by  a 
resolution  of  your  Common  Council,  shall  place  on  the 
Ferry  one  or  more  additional  boats,  to  be  approved  by 
the  Mayor,  &c.  Would  it  be  just,  or  reasonable,  or  hon- 
orable, or  honest,  to  require  us  to  run  two  or  three  boats 
when,  as  we  have  seen,  there  is  not  travel  enough  on  the 
Ferry  to  sustain  one  ?  Have  the  Stockholders  no  rights? 
But,  gentlemen,  I  have  no  apprehension  that  you  will  make 
any  such  requirement.  This  contract  was  based  entirely 
on  good  faith.  It  would  be  unprecedented  bad  faith  to 
violate  its  plain  intent,  as  you  are  now  asked  to  do.  The 


22 


reservation  to  the  Common  Council,  of  the  right  to 
require  the  Company  to  run  more  than  one  boat,  was 
made  part  of  the  contract,  on  the  idea,  that  it  would 
be  exercised  only  in  case  the  Ferry  should  be  profitable, 
and  that  the  lessees  should  be  able,  from  its  profits,  to  do 
so.  There  is  nothing,  in  the  history  of  this  great  city,  to 
induce  a  belief  that  it  will  violate  the  good  faith  on 
which  the  lessees  entered  into  the  contract.  So  far 
from  exacting  more  in  such  cases,  it  has  been  the  policy 
of  the  State,  (as  it  is  with  most  just  men,)  where  a  con- 
tractor has  incurred  more  expense  in  performing  his 
work  than  the  contract  price,  and  more  than  was  con- 
templated by  the  parties,  to  reimburse  him  and  make 
him  good.  No  instance  can  be  named  where  any  city 
or  state  has  taken  an  opposite  course,  and  exacted  more 
than  a  performance  of  his  contract  by  a  losing  party. 
Such  an  act  would  Be  a  stain  on  any  state,  or  city,  or 
man;  and  I  certainly  have  no  fear,  gentlemen,  that  you 
who  are  the  successors  in  office  of  the  Jays,  the  Fishes, 
the  Verplancks,  the  Stevenses,  Chief  Justice  Jones,  the 
Hoffmans,  the  Yan  Schaiks,  the  Havemeyers,  of  Stephen 
Allen,  and  the  other  eminent  and  good  men  who  have 
rendered  the  office  of  Aldermen  of  this  great  city  one  of 
high  honor,  as  well  as  of  great  power,  will  be  the  first  to 
violate  that  faith  on  which  all  men,  dealing  with  the 
municipal  government,  have  thus  far  safely  reposed. 

The  Common  Council  of  the  City  of  New  York  now 
require  from  the  Union  Ferry  Company  about  $59,000 
per  annum  for  rents  of  the  various  ferry  slips.  If  you 
think  it  necessary  that  a  larger  number  of  boats  be  run, 
will  not  the  proper  course  be  to  release  the  Company 
from  payment  of  this  heavy  charge,  and  thereby  enable 
them  to  apply  the  amount  to  an  increase  of  ferry  facili- 
ties? 

Again  : — What  a  commentary  have  we,  in  the  course 
of  this  very  proceeding,  on  the  sincerity  and  readiness 


23 


of  these  "persons  of  abundant  means  and  responsibility " 
to  take  the  boats  and  ferry  fixtures,  and  "  pay  for  them 
all  they  have  cost !  "  It  is  now  gravely  suggested  on 
behalf  of  these  persons,  that  the  Company  shall  make 
a  present  to  them  of  the  whole  Ferry  and  its  fixtures; 
and  that,  if  the  Company  will  do  so,  they  will  buy  and 
run  a  couple  of  boats  thereon.  They  would  pay  the 
Company  some  $30,000  for  a  couple  of  boats,  and  thus, 
instead  of  paying  all  the  Ferry  has  cost,  they  would  pay 
about  $140,000  less  than  its  cost  to  Mr.  Havemeyer's 
Company,  and  about  $91,000  less  than  the  cost  to  the 
present  Company.  They  may  as  well  claim  that  the 
Company  shall  make  them  a  present  of  the  Catharine 
Ferry,  the  Wall  Street  Ferry,  the  South  Ferry,  and  the 
Hamilton  Avenue  Ferry,  all  of  which  are  run  at  a 
loss. 

Now,  we  will  again  test  the  sincerity  of  these  gentle- 
men. The  Company  can  certainly  run  the  Ferry  much 
cheaper  than  they  can,  by  reason  of  the  organization 
under  which  all  the  Ferries  are  managed  by  one  set 
of  officers — having  large  repair  shops  and  works — the 
necessity  of  fewer  reserve  boats,  and  other  facilities — 
the  expense  of  which  being  apportioned  on  all  the  fer- 
ries, greatly  diminishes  the  expense  to  each.  If  these 
"  persons  of  abundant  means  and  responsibility  "  will 
give  a  bond,  indemnifying  the  Company  against  actual 
loss,  the  Company  will  put  on  two  boats,  and  run  them 
as  rapidly  as  steam  can  propel  them.  The  Company 
will  not  ask  one  cent  of  profit,  but  only  indemnity 
against  actual  loss.  There  is  nothing  impracticable  or 
unreasonable  in  this.  The  Hamilton  Avenue  Ferry  was, 
down  to  1851,  run  under  a  similar  arrangement :  such  a 
bond  having  been  given  by  persons  of  responsibility  in 
that  neighborhood. 

But,  Mr.  Chairman,  no  such  bond  will  be  given  by 
these  gentlemen,  although  they  are  loud  in  their  assur- 


24 

ances  that  the  Ferry  (run,  as  Ave  are  ready  to  run  it,  on 
such  a  bond  being  given)  would  be  profitable.  You  will 
not  find  them  willing  even  to  indemnity  us  against  loss, 
although  they  are  so  largely  interested  in  the  region 
affected  by  this  Ferry  ;  nor  will  they  assume  the  results 
of  such  a  bond.  They  cannot  be  induced  to  take  a  dollar 
of  the  stock  of  the  Company,  although  they  can  have  it 
below  par. 

Somebody  must  exercise  judgment  and  decide  as  to 
the  relative  necessities  of  the  different  ferries,  and  as  to 
the  provision  which  ought  to  be  made  for  them  respect- 
ively out  of  the  means  of  the  Company.  Who  can 
decide  this  but  the  managers?  Who  can  be  so  well  able 
to  judge,  and  who  can  be  more  disinterested  in  the  deci- 
sion ?  Doubtless  the  comparatively  few  passengers 
crossing  the  Roosevelt  Street  Ferry  would  be  pleased  to 
have  as  many  boats  and  as  frequent  trips  as  on  the  fer- 
ries which  have  tenfold  its  business — but  the  managers 
must  necessarily  decide  on  the  subject.  They  are  capa- 
ble of  judging.  They  have  large  experience — full 
knowledge  of  the  resources  within  their  control,  and  of  the 
respective  requirements  for  the  actual  travel  on  each 
ferry — and  they  mean  to  act,  as  they  have  done,  according 
to  their  best  judgment,  and  from  their  sense  of  duty. 

II.— POLICY  OF  THE  UNION  OF  THE 
FERRIES. 

We  come  now,  gentlemen,  to  a  branch  of  the  subject 
to  which  your  attention  as  intelligent  legislator's 
invoked,  and  te-whtck  it  is  hoped  that  you  will  give  tliat 
wise  and  careful  consideration  £er  which  a  subject  so 
vitally  affecting  the  interests  of  Brooklyn,  and  of  such 
considerable  interest,  also,  to  your  own  City,  demands. 

I  allude  to  the  policy  and  system  under  which  the  six 
ferries  are  now   combined    and  run  by   the  Union 


25 


Company  under  one  management.  These  Ferries  are 
from — 

1.  Hamilton  Avenue,  Brooklyn,  to  Whitehall  Slip,  New  York. 

2.  Atlantic  Street,*         "        "        "  "  " 

3.  Montague   "  "        "  Wall  Street,  M 

4.  Fulton        "  u        u  Fulton  "  " 

5.  Main  "  "        "  Catherine  Street,  "  " 
.G.    Bridge        "  u        "  Roosevelt     "  M 

I  assume  that  the  people  of  Brooklyn  must  be  enabled 
to  cross  upon  each  of  these  ferries  at  the  same  expense  ; 
that  there  is  no  reason  why  the  man  whose  daily  route 
is  across  the  Hamilton  Avenue  Ferry  should  be  required 
to  pay  more  than  the  man  who  crosses  at  Fulton 
Street  or  at  Roosevelt  Street;  but  on  the  contrary,  that 
the  transit  across  each  of  these  ferries,  which  are  but 
continuations  of  the  City  streets,  should,  like  the  passage 
through  the  streets  themselves,  be  equally  open  and  unat- 
tended by  any  discriminating  difference  of  expense. 
Any  other  rule  will  operate  most  unequally,  and  there- 
fore unjustly,  on  all  those  inhabitants  of  Brooklyn  whose 
pursuits  do  not  lead  them  to  cross  the  Fulton  Ferry. 
That  ferry  is  the  only  one  which  more  than  defrays  its 
expenses  from  its  receipts,  and  the  other  ferries  are  now 
sustained  by  the  profits  derived  from  that  ferry. 

'  In  a  word,  the  large  receipts  of  the  Fulton  Ferry  are 
absolutely  necessary  to  give  to  those  who  use  the  other 
five  ferries  the  means  of  crossing  at  the  same  price.  It 
is  believed  that  the  people  of  Brooklyn  will  never  con- 
sent to  a  separation  of  these  ferries,  which  would  neces- 
sarily compel  those  crossing  at  other  streets  than  Fulton 
to  pay  higher  fare  than  those  who  cross  at  that  point. 
The  great  depreciation  of  property,  which  would  follow, 
and  the  injustice  to  the  people,  can  never  permit  a  fare 
of  one  cent  on  the  Fulton  Street  Ferry — the  actual  discon- 
tinuance (which  would  necessarily  result)  of  at  least  two  or 
three  of  the  others,  and  a  fare  of  three,  four  or  five  cents 
on  the  remainder,  and  the  actual  danger  to  life  from 
over-crowding  the  Fulton  Ferry.    But  all  the  present 


*  Commonly  called  the  South  Ferrv. 
4: 


26 


ferries  must  "be  sustained  by  the  receipts  of  all,  and  the 
deficit  in  those  which  cannot  pay  their  way  must  be  paid 
by  that  from  which  a  surplus  is  derived.  On  any  other 
principle,  how  would  the  post  offices  of  the  country  be 
sustained  ?  This  system  is  absolutely  vital  to  the  interests 
of  Brooklyn.* 

Fulton  Street  is,  and  for  ages  has  been,  the  great  cen- 
tral point  for  crossing  from  Long  Island  to  New  York. 
It  is  the  great  travel- worn  channel.  The  growth  and 
expansion  of  Brooklyn  has  been  lateral  from  Fulton 
street  each  way,  North  and  South.  The  Fulton  Ferry 
is  short  in  distance,  and  being  at  all  times  employed  to 
its  full  capacity,  can  transport  passengers  and  property 
at  cheaper  expense  and  rates  than  any  other.  The  travel 
over  this  Ferry  is  now  immensely  increased  by  the  con- 
struction of  the  Brooklyn  City  Rail  Eoads,  all  of  which 
start  from  and  converge  at  the  ferry  gates. f  As  a 
necessary  consequence,  the  proportion  of  persons  crossing 
at  the  other  ferries  is  diminished,  and  their  means  of 
self-support  are  thereby  also  diminished. 

In  1839  the  Fulton  Ferry  was  united  with  the  Atlantic 
Street  Ferry,  and  in  1851  with  Hamilton  Avenue  Ferry, 
(neither  of  which  was  self-sustaining,)  on  the  plan  of 
carrying  on  the  three  at  rates  barely  sufficient  to  repay 
the  stockholders,  whose  money  was  taken  for  the  purpose. 

*  How  dependent  the  other  ferries  are  on  the  surplus  derived  from  the  Fulton,  will  be 
seen  by  the  following  : — 

The  South  Ferry  lost  during  the  first  two  leases,  from  1  July,  1S39,  to  1  May, 

1851,  including  loss  on  sale  of  boats,  &c.,   $221,579  18 

From  May  1,  1851,  to  May  1, 1S57,  there  was  an  apparent  gain  (no  charge 

being  made  for  depreciation  of  property)  of.   12,280  45 

209,298  73 

The  Hamilton  Ferry  cost  for  losses  prior  to  1  May,  1S51,  21,013  70 

From  1  May,  1851,  to  1  May,  1857,  not  including  depreciation,.. .  19,799  45 

  41,413  15 

The  Wall  Street  Ferry,  from  1  December,  1S53,  to  1  May,  1857, 

including  depreciation  of  property,   96,533  04 

The  Roosevelt  Ferry,                do.               do.               do.  125,865  81 

Catherine  Ferry,              do.              do.              do.  97,057  78 

Gouverneur  Ferry,  do.  do.  do. 

(to  10  January,  1S57,  when  it  was  discontinued,)   64,274  89 

$034,443  40 
—P. 

t  Several  of  the  New  York  City  Rail  Roads  terminate  also  near  the  intersection  of 
Fulton  Street  and  Broadway. 


7  ^   ire-  f       «/'  *7 


27 


The  three  ferries  were  thus  combined,  with  a  capital 
stock  so  reduced  by  the  former  earnings  of  the  Fulton 
Ferry,  as  to  be  much  less  than  would  have  been  neces- 
sary to  originally  establish  the  three  ferries. 

The  fare  had  been,  at  times,  on  the  Fulton  Ferry,  four 
cents,  (and  after  9  P.  M.  six  cents,)  and  on  the  Atlantic 
four  cents.  For  some  time  after  their  union,  they  were 
run  at  three  cents.  Afterwards,  they,  with  the  Hamilton, 
were  run  at  two  cents.  Again,  it  was  reduced  on 
these  three  ferries  (by  tickets)  to  one-and-a-half  cents ; 
and  then  (Nov.  1,  1850,)  to  one  cent. 

This  last  reduction  was  made  in  reliance  on  the  fact 
that  the  capital  had  been  diminished  by  earnings  and 
profits,  and  on  sanguine  hopes  that  the  earnings  of  the 
Fulton  would  enable  the  Company  to  run  the  three  fer- 
ries at  one  cent  fare,  though  the  South  and  Hamilton 
were  still  operated  at  a  loss,  as  they  had  always  been 
when  run  at  the  higher  rates. 

All  these  reductions  were  unprompted,  and  entirely 
voluntary  on  the  part  of  the  Company,  yet  its  defamers 
would  have  you  believe  that  the  managers  are  selfish  and 
mercenary,  and  that,  in  conducting  the  ferries,  they  aim 
to  extort  the  largest  amounts  they  can  obtain  from  the 
people  of  Brooklyn. 

Thus,  the  Company  ran  the  three  ferries  at  one  cent 
in  December,  1853  ;  and  this  was  its  condition  at  that  date. 

The  four  ferries  not  embraced  in  the  consolidation, 
(viz.,  the  Gouverneur,  Catherine,  Roosevelt,  and  Wall,) 
three  of  which  had  been  newly  established,  were  run- 
ning at  two  cents,  but  were  unable  to  sustain  the  com- 
petition with  the  Fulton,  which  was  then  paying  its  own 
expenses,  and  a  large  portion  of  the  expense  of  the  South 
and  Hamilton. 

Now,  had  this  Company  been  swayed  by  the  selfish 
motives  so  freely  imputed  to  it,  could  it  have  desired 
any  better  result  than  that  the  other  four  ferries  should 


2S 


have  been  compelled  to  stop,  and  that  their  passengers 
should  be  consequently  obliged  to  cross  on  the  three  ferries 
of  the  Company  ?  Can  any  of  the  ingenious  enemies  of 
the  Union  Company  tell  us  how  it  was  to  gain  anything  by 
taking  upon  its  hands  these  four  great  losing  concerns?  * 

But  the  managers  looked  at  the  matter  with  reference 
to  the  general  interests  of  Brooklyn,  and  the  practical 
working  of  the  system  which  the  Company  had  estab- 
lished, of  making  the  surplus  of  the  Fulton  help  and 
sustain  the  others.  They  had  no  alternative  but  to  em- 
brace the  four  sinking  ferries  in  the  same  partnership 
arrangement,  (by  which  they  had  so  long  sustained  the 
South  and  Hamilton,)  or  to  break  them  down  entirely  by 
a  competition  to  which  those  four  ferries  were  unequal, 
and  concentrate  the  whole  business  on  the  Fulton,  South, 
and  Hamilton  Ferries. 

The  business  of  the  Fulton  Ferry  was  already  quite  as 
great  as  could  be  well  accommodated  there,  especially  at 
morning  and  evening.  The  danger  resulting  from  any 
greater  crowding  of  its  boats,  when  detained  and  impeded 
by  fog  and  ice,  was  to  be  avoided.  The  railroads  were 
already  increasing  the  proportion  of  the  passengers,  and 
the  concentration  at  that  Ferry  of  any  large  portion  of 
the  business  of  the  others  did  not  seem  compatible  with 
the  safety  of  the  passengers. 

Nor  were  the  Company  willing  to  withdraw  the  accom- 
modations of  the  other  Ferries,  if  they  could  possibly  be 
sustained.  On  the  contrary,  they  desired  to  persevere 
in  the  plan  they  had  so  long  pursued,  of  doing  all  they 
could  for  the  accommodation  of  all  parts  of  Brooklyn  and 
its  people.  They  therefore  received  into  the  Association 
the  Ferries  which  would  otherwise  have  been  discon- 
tinued. This  they  did  in  the  hope,  and  expectation,  and 
belief,  (testimony  of  Mr.  Perry,)  that  by  putting  the  fare 


*  The  Company  was  earnestly  importuned  by  residents  of  the  eastern  part  of  Brooklyn 
to  take  the  ferries  on  that  side  of  Fulton  Street,  inasmuch  as  they  could  not  be  sustained 
in  competition  with  those  of  the  Union  Company. — P. 


on  all  the  Ferries  at  one  cent,  business  might  be  stimu- 


lated and  equalized  :  that  the  increase  of  Brooklyn,  in 
population,  would  aid  the  receipts  of  the  Ferries,  and 
that  by  running  them  cheaper,  (by  means  of  the  Union,) 
they  would  be  able  to  sustain  them  all.  The  learned 
Counsel  for  the  petitioners,  scorning  the  miserable  insinu- 
ation that  the  Company  took  these  four  Ferries  with  a 
view  to  raise  the  fare  on  the  whole,  (a  slander  which  has 
been  often  uttered,)  kindly  enabled  Mr.  Perry  to  testify 
on  that  subject,  by  putting  the  question  to  him.  You 
have  the  testimony  prompt  and  unequivocal,  that  nothing 
was  farther  from  the  Company's  intention  or  thought. 

Such,  gentlemen,  was  the  action  of  the  Company ; 
such  were  its  motives.  In  no  event  could  it  derive  pe- 
cuniary advantage,  or  any  other  advantage,  by  assuming 
the  four  sinking  Ferries,  except  the  advantage  of  pro- 
viding the  largest  accommodation  for  all  the  people  of 
Brooklyn  at  the  lowest  expense. 

It  is  a  material  feature  of  the  advantages  to  the  public 
of  this  consolidation,  that  all  the  Ferry  accommodations 
of  Brooklyn  are  thereby  realized  on  a  capital  much  less 
than  the  actual  cost  of  the  Ferries,  and  very  much  less 
than  it  would  now  cost  to  establish  them  anew. 

The  four  new  Ferries  were  sold  to  the  Union  Company  at 
a  very  great  sacrifice — some  $200,000  less  than  they  cost. 

The  capital  of  the  old  Union  Company  (the  Fulton, 
South,  and  Hamilton  avenue)  was,  by  reason  of  its  former 
earnings  and  the  facts  I  have  stated,  enabled  to  be  put 
in  to  the  present  consolidation,  at  $211, 200. 
The  Roosevelt  Ferry  was  taken*  at   $140,000  00 


238,000  00 

175,000  00 
36,8t)0  00 


Wall  street,^       "  " 
Towards  building  a  new  boat, 


Making  the  whole  capital 


$800,000  00 


*  From  the  Roosevelt  Ferry  Company, 
t  From  Smith  &  Bulkley. 
X  From  Sharp  and  others. 


30 


The  testimony  taken  on  this  hearing  shows,  that  to 
establish  these  Ferries  separately  anew,  would  cost  at 
least  an  average  of  §175,000  each,  making  for  the  seven 
$1,225,000,  and  for  the  six  now  in  operation,  (the  Gouver- 
neur  street  Ferry  having  ceased,)  $1,050,000. 

Isow,  this  fact  is  an  utter  refutation,  if  any  were  need- 
ed, of  the  poor  insinuation,  that  the  Ferries  are  run  on  a 
swollen  and  fictitious  capital. 

But  the  pecuniary  result  has  disappointed  the  Com- 
pany. Instead  of  being  able  to  run  all  the  Ferries  at  a 
uniform  rate  of  one  cent,  the  losses  have  been  found  so 
very  great,  that  it  was  not  a  question  of  mere  expediency 
whether  the  fare  should  be  raised.  It  was  a  vital,  irre- 
sistible, immediate  necessity.  The  loss  the  first  year, 
had  the  rate  of  one  cent  been  continued,  would  have 
been  $120,000,  (Mr.  Perry's  testimony.)  The  fare  was 
consequently  raised  to  one-and-a-half  cents,  which,  prov- 
ing insufficient  to  check  the  sternway,  it  was  then  raised 
to  two  cents.  If  empty  declamation  and  abuse  would 
have  supplied  the  deficit,  the  Company  would  have 
cheerfully  borne  it,  and  would  have  gladly  continued  the 
lower  fare.  But  in  matters  of  finance,  especially  in  busi- 
ness of  this  magnitude,  the  necessities  are  imperative, 
and  figures  are  more  potent  than  phillipics.  The  Com- 
pany had  no  alternative,  whether  they  considered  what 
was  due  as  regarded  mere  honesty  to  the  Stockholders,  or 
the  possibility  of  continuing  the  operation  of  the  Ferries. 

This,  gentlemen,  is  the  history  of  the  reduction  of  the 
fare  to  one  cent  on  the  Fulton,  the  South,  and  the  Ham- 
ilton Ferries  ; — this  is  the  history  of  the  incorporation  (in 
December,  1853,)  of  the  Wall,  Catherine,  Koosevelt,  and 
Gouverneur  Street  Ferries  into  the  Union,  and  of  the 
motives  which  induced  the  Company  to  take  them  ; — 
this  is  the  history  of  the  reasons  and  motives  of  the  Com- 
pany in  attempting  to  run  all  six  of  the  ferries,  when  thus 
united,  at  the  uniform  fare  of  one  cent ; — and  this  is  the 


31 


history  of  the  result  of  that  attempt,  and  of  the  consequent 
necessity  of  restoring  the  fare  to  two  cents  on  all  of  them. 

You  have  before  you  the  sworn  official  statement  of  the 
Company,  made  20th  November  last,  that,  taking  the 
period  from  the  1st  May,  1851,  to  1st  May,  1856,  all  the 
Ferries,  except  the  Fulton,  have  been  largely  losing  con- 
cerns. This  may  be  seen  by  referring  to  Document  No. 
4-i  of  the  Board  of  Aldermen  for  1856,  now  before  you, 
and  which  has  been  often  referred  to  on  this  hearing. 
The  "  Recapitulation"  set  forth  in  that  document,  at  page 
IT,  is  as  follows  : — 

[Doc.  Xo.  44.] 

RECAPITULATION. 

LOSSES.  PROFITS. 

Fulton  Ferrv   $325,288  04 

South      "    2,675  24 

Hamilton"    825,216  98 

Wall  street  Ferrv   59,490  21 

Roosevelt       "    62,854  21 

Catharine       "    43,266  57 

Gouverneur    "    37,745  30 

Total  $228,573  27 

Balance,  being  surplus  to  applv  toward  de- 
preciation of  boats,  fixtures,*  &c   99,390  01 

$327,963  28  $327,963  28* 

Xote. — The  losses  paid  by  the  previous  Union  Ferry  Company,  in 
sustaining  the  South  Ferry,  from  July  1, 1839,  to  ATay  1, 1855,  amounted 
to  one  hundred  and  fifty-nine  thousand,  six  hundred  and  eighty-nine 
dollars. 

The  surplus  above  mentioned  is  entirely  insufficient  for  the  pur- 
pose, it  having  been  found  by  experience  that  the  lowest  per  centage 
of  depreciation  that  will  make  up  for  the  difference  between  the  cost 
of  boats  when  new,  and  the  amount  received  for  sales  when  old,  is 
seven  per  cent,  per  annum,  calculating  the  depreciation  upon  the 
reduced  value  of  each  year. 

*  The  above  statement  is  to  May  1,  1S56.  The  following  are  the  results  of  the  year 
from  1st  May,  1S56,  to  1st  May,  1S57  :— 

LOSSES.  GAISS. 

Hamilton  Ferry   $1,196  17 

Atlantic   S06  23 

Montague   10,642  S3 

Fulton   $112,713  23 

Roosevelt   16,511  61 

Catherine  16,111  21 

Gouverneur,  discontinued  Jan.  10, 1S57   10,729  59        55,997  63 

Total  gross  surplus   $56,720  60 

(The  depreciation,  as  shown  by  the  annual  appraisal,  was...  42,200  00) 

Leaving  the  actual  profit  for  the  year  (dividends  paid)  $14,520  60  P. 


32 


It  will  thus  be  seen,  that  while  the  Fulton  Ferry,  dur- 
ing the  period  named,  yielded  $325,288  01  profit,  the 
others  caused  a  loss  of  $228,573  27.  The  South  Ferry 
yielded  an  apparent  profit  of  §2,G75  24  ;  but  the  great 
loss,  by  wear  and  tear,  is  not  included  in  these  estimates, 
and  as  is  shown,  that  loss,  during  the  five  years  to  which 
these  returns  relate,  much  exceeded  the  apparent  profit 
of  $99,390  01  on  all  the  Ferries.  The  amounts  of  loss  on 
these  different  Ferries  respectively,  varied  considerably 
in  different  years;  but  it  is  obvious  that  no  one  of  them 
(other  than  the  Fulton)  could  be  run  as  an  independent 
establishment,  except  at  ruinous  loss  to  its  proprietors. 

It  is  to  be  borne  in  mind  that  the  expenses  of  running 
ferries,  such  as  now  bridge  the  river,  are  very  unlike 
those  of  former  days.  Instead  of  the  creeping  horse- 
boat  and  the  one  steamboat,  consisting  of  two  scows 
united  by  a  deck,  in  which  the  floors  of  the  little  cabins 
were  supplied  with  a  carpet  of  salt  hay  on  Monday 
mornings,  the  boats  costing  but  little,  and  run  at  a  very 
small  expense,  you  now  have  twenty-one  large  steamers, 
averaging  the  size  and  tonnage  of  the  old  line  of  Liver- 
pool  packets — propelled  by  powerful  engines,  and  costing 
from  $35,000  to  $45,000  each.  Eighteen  of  these  vessels 
are  running  constantly,  consuming  numberless  ship-loads 
of  coal"-  in  their  eighteen  furnaces,  which  are  burning 
by  clay,  and  part  of  them  also  by  night ;  the  ferries 
requiring  in  their  management,  on  the  most  economical 
system  consistent  with  efficiency,  the  services  of  between 
300  and  400  men,  who  are  constantly  employed  as 
clerks,  engineers,  pilots,  ferry  masters,  conductors,  gate- 
men,  bridgemen,  deck  hands,  firemen,  watchmen,  car- 
penters, blacksmiths,  shipwrights,  painters,  cartmen, 
lampmen,  laborers,  &c.,  and  the  Company  paying  to  the 
City  of  New  York  $59,000  per  annum  for  leasesf — to 

*  25,000  tons  per  annum. — P. 

t  And  a  rent,  in  Brooklyn,  of  $'^3,S00  per  annum  for  premises  necessary  for  yards, 
shops,  &c. — P. 


33 


say  nothing  of  the  heavy  depreciation  by  wear  and 
tear  of  the  boats,  which  are  so  incessantly  running  by 
day  and  night,  and  in  winter  battering  through  masses 
of  solid  ice,  and  requiring  very  large  and  constant  outlay 
for  repairs.  With  such  great  expenses  as  these,  it  is 
obvious  that  when  the  receipts  were  falling  behind  the 
disbursements  at  the  rate  of  $120,000  per  annum,  there 
was  but  one  possible  course — and  that  an  imperative 
one — to  raise  the  fare  to  meet  these  large  and  inevitable 
expenses. 

I  suppose  it  will  be  conceded,  too,  that  these  Directors 
are  under  some  little  obligation  of  duty,  also,  to  the 
stockholders,  whose  money  is  used  to  supply  us  with 
these  ferry  accommodations. 

The  Directors  ought  also  to  provide  a  sufficient  reserve 
fund  to  meet  the  claims  arising  from  damages  by  col- 
lision and  other  accidents  to  which,  in  fogs  and  other- 
wise, they  are  constantly  liable,  notwithstanding  the 
strictest  care  and  the  greatest  skill  on  the  part  of  the 
Pilots.  Enormous  claims  are  always  preferred  against 
the  Company  in  such  cases,  and  suits  are  now  pending 
where  exorbitant  damages  are  exacted. 

Gentlemen,  you  will  pardon  me  for  saying,  with  full 
knowledge  of  the  managers,  and  after  adequate  observa- 
tion of  their  acts,  that  in  my  belief,  no  Orphan  Asylum, 
Savings  Bank,  or  other  public  charity  in  the  State,  is 
conducted  by  more  disinterested,  public-spirited,  upright, 
or  unselfish  counsels ;  and  Brooklyn  will  appreciate  what 
have  been  their  services,  if  they  are  succeeded  in  their 
trust  by  politicians  and  speculators,  who  will  run  the  fer- 
ries for  their  own  profit,  and  when  public  convenience 
and  the  safety  of  passengers  will  be  postponed  to  money- 
making  schemes. 

You,  Mr.  Chairman,  are,  I  believe,  an  ex-offioio  member 
of  this  Board  of  Managers.    They  beg  that  you  will 

5 


34 


attend  all  their  meetings — participate  in  all  their  deliber- 
ations and  decisions,  and  scrutinize  closely  (and  suspi- 
ciously, if  yon  will)  every  act  and  its  motive,  past  and 
future. 

This  Company  have  no  secrets,  nothing  which  they 
would  screen  from  investigation.    A  number  of  gentle- 
men suddenly  called  at  the  office  some  months  ago, 
unheralded,  unannounced,  with  no  notice  to  the  Com- 
pany of  their  coming,  and  stated  that  they  were  a 
Committee  appointed  at  some  public  meeting  to  investi- 
gate the  affairs  of  the  Company.    Whether  this  was 
proper,  or  usual,  I  do  not  care  to  discuss — suffice  it  to 
say,  that  instead  of  repelling  them,  as  would  have  been 
done  by  any  other  Corporation,  the  Company  on  the 
instant  opened  all  their  books  and  papers  to  them,  and 
gave  them  every  opportunity  for  the  fullest  and  closest 
inspection  of  all  their  affairs.    A  Company  or  an  indi- 
vidual must  indeed  have  its  "house  in  order,"  who  could 
submit  to  such  a  sudden  invasion  and  hostile  inspection. 
Is  there  any  other  Company  of  any  kind,  whether  Insurance 
Manufacturing,  or  other,  that  would,  or  could,  or  should, 
thus  receive  and  respond  on  the  instant  to  such  a  visit  ?  The 
finding  of  the  Committee  which  thus  explored  the  affairs 
of  the  Company,  was  certainly  all  that  the  Company 
could  desire,  and  it  must  be  confessed,  reflected  credit  on 
the  individuals  concerned  for  their  candor.    Indeed,  we 
believe  that  no  honorable  and  just  man  can  faithfully 
investigate  the  affairs  and  management  of  this  Com- 
pany— however  prejudiced  he  may  have  been  at  the 
outset — who  will  not  confess  that  it  has  been  wisely  and 
disinterestedly,  as  well  as  most  carefully  managed ;  and 
that  it  has  been  conducted  with  a  view  and  in  a  manner 
to  promote  the  best  interests  of  Brooklyn. 


35 


III.— THE  ASPERSIONS  ON  THE  COMPANY. 

The  motives  which  have  impelled  the  systematic 
attacks  and  diatribes  of  which  the  Company  has  been 
the  subject  for  some  time  past,  have  been  various. 
Crazy  notions  have  been  entertained,  by  one  portion 
of  its  assailants,  as  to  the  profits  of  the  Company,  and 
of  "  the  money  to  be  made  out  of  it."  The  old  system 
of  free  tickets  to  many  persons  has  been  (from  the  neces- 
sities of  the  Company,  as  well  as  from  a  sense  of  justice 
to  the  mass,)  abolished,  and  this,  it  is  believed,  has  con- 
verted divers  eulogists  into  enemies.  Another  class  has 
earned  the  distinction  and  consequence  which  attach  to 
those  who  conspicuously  expound  what  ought  to  be  done 
by  others  for  "  the  public  ;" — while  still  another  class 
consists  of  those  who  always  had  been  contented,  and 
supposed  they  were  well  served,  until  instructed  as  to 
the  extent  of  their  wrongs,  and  who  thereupon  are  ready 
to  sign  petitions,  (as  in  the  Roosevelt  Ferry  case,)  without 
any  very  careful  examination,  consideration,  or  knowl- 
edge of,  or  interest  in,  the  subject; — and  there  are,  again, 
others  who,  supposing  the  various  charges  against  the 
Company,  so  profusely  made,  to  be  true,  are  honestly 
and  naturally  zealous  to  right  the  supposed  wrongs. 

Old  fashioned  Brooklyn  people  have  believed,  and 
always  boasted,  that  we  had  the  best  ferries  in  the  world. 
We  know  that  all  travellers  have  pronounced  them  so, 
and  we  know  that,  at  the  present  rates,  they  are  the 
cheapest  in  the  world.  But  the  enthusiastic  reformers 
have  undertaken  to  show  how  very  unhappy  we  are,  and 
have  filled  the  air,  and  filled  the  New  York  newspapers, 
with  clamorous  denunciations  of  the  ferries,  and  of  the 
"  Union  Ferry  Monopoly."  They  have  represented  that 
nothing  is  right,  but  everything  wrong, — nothing  honest, 
but  everything  mercenary  and  sinister  on  the  part  of  the 
Company,  which  they  declare  to  be  rapacious,  and  bent 
on  sponging  from  the  people  to  fill  their  pockets  ;  and 


36 


that  the  stockholders  received  prodigious  profits  and 
dividends.  (Yet  these  worthy  gentlemen  would  not  buy 
its  stock  at  par,  nor  at  90  cents  on  the  dollar.)  Their 
mistake  as  to  profits  and  dividends  was  shown  by  the 
fact,  that  the  stockholders  received  but  8  per  cent,  for 
their  money  and  its  risks. 

Then  it  was  charged,  that  though  the  stockholders 
generally  might  receive  but  8  per  cent.,  yet  the  Direct- 
ors were  pocketing  vast  amounts.  This  allegation  was 
met  by  the  fact  that  a  large  portion,  if  not  most,  of  the 
Directors,  held  but  one  share,  ($100,) — barely  enough  to 
constitute  them  Directors, — and  that  they  certainly 
receive  no  larger  dividends  or  other  revenue  from  that 
stock,  than  any  other  stockholders  do.  Then  it  was  pro- 
claimed that  the  Directors  received  enormous  salaries. 
The  truth  was  shown  to  be,  that  they  receive  no  salaries 
at  all,  but  that  their  services  are  gratuitous,  and  that 
the  whole  salaries  paid  to  all  the  officers  of  the  Company 
(President,  Managing  Director  and  Attorney,  Treasurer 
and  Secretary,  Cashier  and  Office-Clerk,  Superintendent, 
Assistant  to  ditto,  and  Clerk  for  South  and  Hamilton 
Ferries — Assistant  and  Clerk  for  Roosevelt,  Catherine, 
and  Gouverneur  Ferries,  and  Chief  Engineer)  were  alto- 
gether less  than  $16,000 — a  sum  less  than  any  other 
Institution  managing  so  large  a  property  in  this  State. 

Thus,  every  specific  charge  was  met  and  extin- 
guished. 

The  opponents  of  the  Company  have,  with  great  assi- 
duity and  vociferousness,  proclaimed  themselves  to  be 
the  special  representatives  of  "  the  poor  sewing  women 
and  laborers."  They  assumed  to  be  the  champions  of  the 
poor,  and  to  have  no  other  end  than  to  enable  that  class 
to  have  cheap  ferriage.  Their  self-delegated  authority 
as  the  particular  representatives  of  "  the  poor  sewing 
women  and  laborers  "  has  been  their  great  "  point," — 
the    chief    item    of   their    stock    in    trade.  But 


37 


this  ad  captandum  they  have  used  so  overmuch,  that 
they  have  worn  it  out.  Now,  it  is  a  significant  fact,  that 
in  all  these  upbraid  ings  of  the  Ferry  Company  on  the 
score  of  its  fare,  the  complaints  have  proceeded  from  the 
rich  poor  alone.  The  murmurs  at  two  cents  fare  have 
been,  as  I  am  assured,  altogether  from  men  in  broad- 
cloth, not  from  men  in  shirt-sleeves,  nor  from  sewing 
women.  Our  Brooklyn  poor  people  are  not  poor  in 
spirit.  They  have  all  been  found  just  enough  and  rea- 
sonable enough  to  be  willing  to  pay  their  fare,  and  sen- 
sible enough  and  confiding  enough  to  believe  that  the 
managers  of  the  ferries  were  dealing  uprightly,  and 
doing  their  best  to  promote  the  public  convenience  and 
safety. 

One  set  of  complainants,  as  to  the  management  of  the 
ferries,  insist  that  no  ferry  shall  receive  any  assistance 
from  any  other  ferry.  This  rule,  as  we  have  seen,  would 
put  an  end  to  most,  if  not  all,  the  ferries,  except  the 
Fulton. 

At  a  public  meeting  held  at  the  City  Hall  in  February 
last,  one  of  the  Resolutions  adopted  was  in  these  words : 
"  Resolved,  That  the  principle  of  taxing  the  necessities 
"  of  three-quarters  of  the  ferry-crossing  population  to 
"  pay  for  the  convenience  of  the  other  quarter  is  unsound 
"  in  itself,  and  if  carried  out,  could  only  end  in  justify- 
"  ing  the  absurdity  of  running  ferries  from  the  foot  of 
"  every  street."  Another  Resolution  of  the  same  meet- 
ing declared  that  the  Hamilton,  South  and  Fulton  Ferries 
could  and  ought  to  be  run  at  one  cent. 

In  other  words,  the  surplus  earnings  of  the  Fulton 
Ferry  ought  to  be  applied  to  keep  up  the  non-paying 
Hamilton  and  South,  while  the  non-paying  Wall,  Cathe- 
rine, and  Roosevelt  should  go  down.  This  was  selfish 
enough,  one  would  think  ;  yet  these  are  the  same  gentle- 
men who  impeach  as  selfish  the  motives  and  action  of 
the  Company  in  trying  to  sustain  all  the  Ferries.  Now, 


have  the  people,  who  use  the  Hamilton  and  South  Ferries, 
an  exclusive  right  to  the  surplus  derived  from  the  Fulton  \ 
Have  they  any  better  right  to  it  than  they  who  use  the 
Wall,  Catherine,  and  Roosevelt  Ferries  ?  Have  they  a 
right  to  say,  that  to  enable  themselves  to  cross  at  one 
cent,  the  three  latter  Ferries  shall  cither  be  discontinued, 
or  that  those  who  cross  on  them  shall  pay  a  much  higher 
fare  ? 

At  the  same  meeting,  the  worthy  Chairman,  (a  gentle- 
man incapable  of  unfairness,  and  who  would  be  prompt 
to  correct  an  erroneous  charge  when  apprised  of  its  be- 
ing such,)  in  a  dignified  speech,  declared  *  that  the 
Catherine  and  Roosevelt  Ferries,  "  when  they  were  under 
individual  management,  were  profitable  Ferries"  and 
was  astonished  that  they  should  be  otherwise,  under  the 
management  of  the  Union  Company.  He  also  averred 
the  Wall  street  (Montague)  Ferry  to  be  profitable  now. 

How  mistaken  he  was  in  his  statement  has  been  proved, 
not  only  by  the  statistics  in  evidence,  but  as  to  the  Roosevelt 
Ferry,  Mr.  Havemeyer  has  shown  you  its  results,  and  Mr. 
 (one  of  the  hostile  witnesses)  has  told  us,  on  this  ex- 
amination, that  the  Catherine  Ferry  had  nearly  ruined  its 
proprietors  before  the  Union  Company  took  it.  You  have 
also  seen,  from  the  same  returns,  how  it  is  with  the  Wall 
street  Ferry.  JSTow,  when  such  a  "man  as  the  Chairman 
of  the  meeting  credited,  as  he  naturally  did,  the  charges 
so  freely  made  against  the  Company,  it  is  not  strange 
that  less  intelligent  and  less  well  informed  persons  should 
assume  to  be  true  the  various  statements  derogatory  to 
the  Company,  which  are  so  loudly  made  and  studiously 
paraded  in  the  newspapers. 

As  to  the  Catherine  Ferry,  it  was  profitable  when 
Mr.  Bowne  was  its  proprietor,  because  it  then  had  no 
Roosevelt  Ferry  to  divide  its  business,  but  did  all  the 


*  As  reported  in  the  Brooklyn  Eagle  of  Feb.  10th,  1S57. 


39 


business  now  done  by  both.  Moreover,  Mr.  Bowne  paid 
a  rent  of  but  83,500,  in  place  of  the  $16,000  rent  paid 
by  the  late  and  present  proprietors,  and  the  boats  em- 
ployed on  it  were  very  small  and  cheap  compared  with 
those  now  in  use ;  nor  had  the  City  Railroads  (which 
have  been  since  established)  then  carried  a  portion  of  its 
business  to  the  Fulton  Ferry. 

Here  we  have  Hamilton  avenue,  South,  Catherine, 
Wall  and  Roosevelt  Ferries,  each  and  all  depending  on 
the  Fulton  Ferry  to  hold  them  up ;  and  yet  one  of  your 
witnesses,  on  this  hearing,  complains  earnestly  that  this 
very  Roosevelt  Ferry,  which,  but  for  this  support,  would 
have  ceased  in  December,  1853,  or  soon  after,  had  been 
taken  into  the  Union  Company  consolidation  !  Do  the 
gentlemen  who  make  such  loud  complaints  of  our  not 
running  two  or  three  boats  on  the  Roosevelt  Ferry,  con- 
cur in  the  views  of  their  witness,  and  of  the  indignation 
meeting  at  the  City  Hall,  and  clo  they  think  that  the 
profits  of  the  Fulton  should  be  applied  exclusively  to  the 
South  and  Hamilton  Ferries  ? 

One  of  the  complainant's  witnesses  was  eloquent  and 
protracted  in  his  denunciation  of  the  management  of  the 
Ferries  generally  since  1851.  Other  testimony  was  also 
taken  to  the  same  point.  On  the  other  hand,  the  honor- 
able Chairman  of  the  meeting  to  which  I  have  referred, 
admitted  that  the  Ferries  had  been  well  managed ;  and 
you  have  explicit  proof  by  Mr.  McFarlan,  Mr.  Yan 
Duyne  and  Mr.  Perry,  two  of  whom  have  been  connected 
with  the  Ferries  for  twenty  years,  that  they  have  never 
been  run  with  more  regularity  and  rapidity  than  now. 
Indeed,  with  regard  to  the  condition  of  the  boats,  it  was 
as  I  am  informed,  argued  in  substance  by  certain  com- 
plainants before  a  Committee  of  the  Legislature  at  Al- 
bany last  week,  that  no  allowance  ought  to  be  made  for 
a  depreciation  of  the  boats,  because  so  much  money  was 
spent  in  keeping  them  in  such  high  order  ! 


40 


It  will  be  an  evil  day  for  Brooklyn  when  these  Ferries 
pass  into  the  hands  of  speculators  and  politicians.  That 
may  happen  with  the  expiration  of  the  existing  leases ; 
for  the  present  managers  will  not  be  apt  to  resume  such 
responsibilities  and  perform  such  great  labors,  as  they 
have  done — responsibilities  and  labors  which  are  not  and 
cannot  be  profitable  to  themselves,  but  which  are  requited 
only  by  misrepresentation  and  reproach.  Up  to  this 
time  no  self-seeking,  money-making  speculators — no 
party  politicians — have  had  the  control  of  the  Ferries. 
It  is  quite  unnecessary  to  ask,  whether,  under  the  guid- 
ance of  such  persons,  the  people  would  be  more  disinte- 
restedly or  safely  served. 

It  will  be  wise  for  such  of  the  present  assailants  of  the 
Ferry  management,  as  have  the  welfare  and  safety  of 
Brooklyn  and  its  people  really  at  heart,  to  pause  and 
consider  whether  the  course  they  are  pursuing  is  not 
likely  to  jeopard  both.  If  they  will  ingenuously  and 
faithfully  acquaint  themselves  with  all  the  facts  and  con- 
siderations involved,  it  is  believed  they  will  cease  to  dis- 
trust the  motives  of  the  present  managers,  and  will  con- 
cur in  their  views  as  to  the  policy  which  ought  to  be 
pursued. 

The  distinguished  skill  and  untiring  care  with  which 
the  boats  on  these  Ferries  have  been  managed,  cannot  be 
surpassed.  The  number  of  passengers  who  cross  in  them 
annually  equals,  it  is  believed,  the  whole  population  of 
the  United  States,  and  yet,  in  upwards  of  twenty  years, 
but  two  lives  have  been  lost,  and  the  fault  in  these  cases 
was  not  justly  chargeable  to  any  want  of  care  or  skill. 
Is  it  wise  to  disturb,  or  derange,  or  embarrass  a  system 
that  has  worked  so  well,  and  produced  such  efficiency 
and  safety? 

The  present  superintendent  and  his  predecessor  have 
manifested  consummate  ability  in  the  discharge  of  their 
duties  ;  while  the  Pilots  who  "  handle"  the  boats  in  the 


rapid  cross-tides  and  difficult  navigation  of  the  East 
River,  threading  their  way  through  the  fleets  of  vessels 
that  often  crowd  the  waters,  have,  by  their  skill,  become 
a  distinguished  class  among  the  noted  water-craftmen  of 
our  bay. 

May  we  not  safely  claim,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the 
charges  against  the  Company,  respecting  the  Roosevelt 
street  Ferry,  are  not  only  not  sustained,  but  distinctly 
refuted — that  the  present  plan  of  running  the  various 
Ferries  under  one  consolidation,  (so  that  those  which  are 
not  self-sustaining  can  be  supported  by  that  which  pro- 
duces a  surplus,  thus  enabling  all  to  be  run  at  the  same 
rate  of  fare  to  passengers)  is  essential  to  the  interests  of 
Brooklyn — that  the  imputations  made  upon  the  motives 
and  conduct  of  the  Managers  are  both  unjust  and  unge- 
nerous— and  that  the  interests  and  prosperity  of  Brook- 
lyn are  liable  to  be  seriously  damaged  and  impaired  by 
the  substitution  of  any  innovating  experiments,  in  place 
of  a  system  which  has  secured  so  much  of  benefit  to  the 
public. 


To  the  foregoing  I  may  add,  (a  point  not  adverted  to 
on  the  argument,)  that  nothing  can  be  less  true  than  the 
charge  intended  to  be  implied  by  the  epithet  t£  Union 
Ferry  Monopoly"  so  carefully  and  constantly  employed 
by  the  enemies  of  this  Company,  in  conversations, 
speeches,  and  newspapers. 

If  the  Company  held  the  Fulton  Ferry  alone,  unen- 
cumbered by  the  others,  and  were  receiving  and  appro- 
priating its  great  profits  to  their  own  use,  then  the  term 
monopoly  would  not  be  misapplied. 

The  position  of  the  Company,  justly  considered,  is 
the  converse  of  a  monopoly. 

The  managers  of  a  monopoly  (in  the  sense  in  which 
this  catch-word  is  thus  used)  would  not  be  apt  to  mani- 

6 


42 


fest  their  monopolising  spirit  by  voluntarily  reducing 
their  charges,  and  diminishing  their  revenues  to  the 
lowest  point  compatible  with  their  existence.  Their  only 
error  in  this  case  has  been,  that  in  the  most  anti- 
monopolizing  spirit  possible,  in  respect  to  their  income? 
they  have  gone  too  far,  and  the^efoy^fo^nd  i^njcessar^ 
to  return  to  a  point  still  rjelfow^that  frxm^whictf^tney 
originally  receded. 

A  monopolizing  spirit  would  not  have  induced,  nor 
would  it  have  permitted,  this  Company  to  assume  the 
burden  and  support  of  the  four  unprofitable  Ferries  from 
Wall,  Catherine,  Roosevelt,  and  Gouverneur  Streets, — 
the  only  effect  of  which  could  be,  to  diminish  the 
profits  which  the  Company  might  otherwise  have 
made. 

It  is  difficult  to  see  what  could  savor  less  of  a 
monopoly,  than  the  application  to  the  Ferry  accommo- 
dations of  all  parts  of  Brooklyn,  of  the  profits  derived 
from  the  only  one  of  the  establishments  which  was 
lucrative,  instead  of  confining  the  benefits  resulting 
therefrom  to  one  section  or  locality. 

The  plan  insisted  on  at  the  public  meeting  above  referred 
to — was  a  monopoly.  It,  in  effect,  required  the  applica- 
tion of  the  surplus  derived  from  the  Fulton  Ferry  to  the 
sole  benefit  of  the  South  and  Hamilton  Ferries  ;  and 
excluded  from  the  benefit  of  that  surplus  all  that  portion 
of  our  population  whose  ways  lie  across  the  Wall, 
Catherine,  and  Roosevelt  Ferries.  That  such  would  be 
the  result,  has  been  shown  by  the  fact,  that  neither  of  the 
three  last  Ferries  could  be  conducted  without  aid  from 
the  Fulton  * 

The  plan  thus  insisted  on  at  that  meeting  savored 
of  the  most  odious  kind  of  monopoly,  in  that  it 
exacted  for  the  South  and  Hamilton  Ferries  the  exclu- 


*  See  note  on  page  2G,  ante. 


43 


sive  benefit  of  a  fund  to  which  the  other  three  ferries 
might,  with  equal  justice,  lay  claim. 

The  management  of  the  ferries  under  one  organization 
is  no  more  a  monopoly  than  the  management  of  our 
City  streets  or  other  municipal  affairs  under  one  City 
government  is  a  monopoly.  If  it  be  a  monopoly  to  run 
all  the  six  ferries  at  the  lowest  fare  consistent  with  their 
efficiency  and  safety — to  treat  their  revenues  as  a  com- 
mon fund — and  to  apply  that  fund  to  the  support  of  all, 
so  that  the  people  in  every  section  shall  have  their  ferry 
accommodations  at  the  same  price — then  it  is  not  proba- 
ble that  the  citizens  of  Brooklyn  will  desire  the  manage- 
ment of  the  ferries  to  be  conducted  otherwise  than  under 
such  a  monopoly. 


